Mothers Build Nations

The alt-right has a tendency to be male-oriented. This has less to do with sexism and more to do with the fact that it is a reactionary movement against a gynocentric liberal orthodoxy that treats men as inherently evil and flawed. Thus, we spend a lot of time making arguments that are verboten by the Cult, such as evidence that the income gap arises from biology not bigotry, or that children raised without fathers have remarkably reduced odds for social mobility. We don't spend a lot of time arguing in favor of the value of women because the current culture values women. There's not much to argue about. Still, it's worth keeping in mind the vital role that women play, and that without them our movement is doomed to whither and die.

Ideologically, we are mostly concerned with order. There are three major pillars of western civilization: freedom, justice, and order. The left is obsessed with justice, and the right with freedom. Order is ignored in the left/right paradigm. The alt-right is here to remind everyone that order is essential, and that the old social orders existed for a reason. Western civilization requires all its pillars in place and in proportion. Runaway justice leads to communism. Runaway freedom leads to anarchy, which is why we beat up on libertarians so much. Runaway order leads to fascism, which might explain why they are so quick to call us fascists, for daring to pay attention to the need for order at all. These aren't theoretical postulates; history provides all necessary empiricism for justice, freedom, and order gone wild.

The notion that the old social orders matter implies much of the alt-right platform. Families matter. Culture matters. Nations matter. Alt-right is a loose term, but nationalism is always assumed. We reject the multi-cultural experiment and posit that civilizations are built on the backs of nations. We note the historical precedent that destruction of the nation proceeds collapse of the society, and suspect that there's no magic in post-modernism which alleviates the causality.

It's been said that civilization is men's attempt to impress women. Whatever the motives, civilization is certainly built by men. Even today, when every college and corporation is desperate to hire women engineers, the vast majority remain male. Men may build civilizations, but women's role is even more important: they build nations. The key distinction between male and female is that sperm are plentiful and eggs are rare. Men are valuable but expendable. Women must be protected. If a tribe lost most of its men, it would still have a shot at survival. It would be highly subject to invasion, resource shortages, and rampant catfighting, but if it could solve those problems the tribe might restore itself in a single generation. A tribe that lost most of its women would be permanently reduced. Perhaps the men could steal women from a neighboring tribe, but at the cost of greatly altering their own tribe's genetics.

Not only are women essential for maintaining genetic identity, but they also steer the culture of the nation. Values and psychological attributes are largely established by five years of age. Thus, culture is built by mothers. Without women on board, even strong cultural movements are not likely to survive more than a generation. Women are also social creatures, more so than men, and have high influence on social dynamics. It's always important to have women supporting whatever it is you're trying to sell. (Every successful band is aware of this.)

If nationalism is the goal, women are the solution. Men can't build nations. Only women can do that. To succeed, we must strive to bring at least as many women as men into the fold. Fortunately, there is a fairly successful technique for making women conservative: marry them. Adacious Epigone has shown that, while women are much more likely than men to vote for socialist policies overall, married women vote about the same as men, whereas single women vote massively for the left. And this makes sense. The left values woman as individuals, woman as consumers, and women as political entities. The right values women as mothers and nation builders. Single women vote for policies that benefit the individual. Married women vote in the interests of family and nation.

The number one rule that men of the alt-right need to keep in mind is something their mothers probably taught them a long time ago: don't hit girls. Some openly suggest we should eliminate women's suffrage, based on the observation that socialist policies reliably followed women's suffrage by about fifteen years in western countries. Perhaps they have a point, but that is no way to make the kinds of friends we need to make. Attacking our prominent women won't get us anywhere either. Vox Day dismisses Lauren Southern as "a blonde who says obvious shit." Of course she says obvious shit; she's alt-right! Most of what we do is just to note the observations that we aren't supposed to note. It needn't be complicated. Really he's probably just annoyed that a journalist is getting more attention than an intellectual. The alt-right has no shortage of core intellectuals. It's success hinges on effective social engagement. To the extent that the alt-right helped elect Trump, it wasn't through syllogisms, but through memes. That was the key insight that powered a radically successful guerrilla social media campaign. Let's not force ourselves to relearn old lessons. Other thinkers like to punch at our social assets. The Zman loves to jab at Gavin and Milo, even though their social reach dwarfs his own respectable following. Of course the social activists will garner a greater social response than dry intellectuals. That is normally the case in any social movement. Complaining about it seems a bit immature, even selfish.

When it comes to women, we should err on the side of shameless promotion. There are many great women who produce content we should be sharing. The Cult does everything in its power to make women fearful of the alt-right. The most effective counter is to make sure the women of the alt-right have as much exposure as possible. Here are a few, presented in no particular order. I'll update any notable omissions.

• Brittany Pettibone
• Tara McCarthy
• Lana Lokteff
• Wife With a Purpose
• Roaming Millennial
• Lauren Southern
• Blonde in the Belly of the Beast
• Ann Coulter
• Blaire White (token trans of the alt right)

The Offense Malicy

In a recent post, WM Briggs pointed out the Offense Fallacy in response to a recent incident where a British university student was expelled for quoting the Bible to argue that gay marriage is a sin. It is telling that someone like Briggs, who mostly blogs about statistics, would feel compelled to opine on the topic. He must be, like us, aghast that the nation that spawned Richard the Lion-Hearted and the world's first global empire has become so self-minimalized that Bible quotations are mortal sins requiring draconian punishments.

The Offense Fallacy is the belief that any action or statement is immoral if it offends anyone. The moral hazard is that it gives any person the power to invalidate anything another does by simply being offended, or merely by pretending to be offended, which so often seems the case. Generally speaking, feelings (fake or real) are not logical constructions. We can't logically disprove the Offense Fallacy, because it's really not an argument. Briggs provides a clear enough practical counterexample. He is offended by the ruling of the university. Therefor the ruling is immoral and must be reversed! None of this is conceptually difficult. We teach even young children that they'll never be able to please everyone. That is very similar to telling them that anything they do is liable to offend someone. If it is impossible not to offend at some point, and offense is a mortal sin, then the only moral choice is to do nothing. And the only way to really do nothing is to commit suicide. (The left, being something of a death cult already, would naturally adopt such stances.)

Briggs gives the Offense Fallacy, if anything, too much credit, for example by calling it an argument. It is not an argument at all. It is just a rule. Don't offend anyone. There's no argument. It's backed by ethos, not logos. The problem isn't that it's illogical. The problem is that, as we discussed in There Are No Rules, Only Excuses, inconsistently enforced rules are merely convenient tools for tyranny. The No Offense rule is probably the most inconsistently enforced rule out there. It's meant to be inconsistent, and enforcement is entirely identity-based. Men can't offend women. Whites can't offend "minorities". Straights can't offend gays. And so on. The trend is apparent. The rule should more correctly be stated those perceived to be strong are not permitted to offend those perceived to be weak. This is a somewhat more logically defensible rule, at least. The British student was wrong because Christianity is seen as strong and homosexuality as weak. (Yes, the rule is drowning in bigotry). And Briggs's offense at the ruling is insubstantial since he is a strong white male and the offense comes from an institution working in the interests of the weak.

The real problem is much deeper than a logical fallacy. Western society has decided that its primary goal is to root out oppression from society, yet it has also determined that the most oppressive thing on earth is western society. Liberalism is an autoimmune disease, where the body is attacked by its own immune system. The selectively enforced No Offense rule is just a means to an end. We must destroy our society to stop oppression. Unchecked egalitarianism is no less dangerous than unchecked greed. (And, if only body count is considered, it is much more dangerous.) This is the reason the alt-right doesn't tend to beat up on Muslims. Yes, they're invaders, but it's perfectly natural that they would be. Islam is like pneumonia. It's always there, always trying to kill us. It's a manageable threat until our immune system is compromised. When someone with AIDS dies from a pneumonia infection, we say they were killed by AIDS. Similarly, the west is being killed by liberalism, which is suppressing its own immune system with No Offense rules.

The Sanity of Cynicism

Cynicism is a word with heavy negative connotations. "You're being cynical" is never intended as a compliment. But there is something of a disconnect between this perception of cynicism and its role in reality. Most of the interesting people are cynics. Without cynicism we don't get great sarcasm or satire or stand-up comedy. Cynicism is associated with bitterness or eternal negativity; with those who can never be pleased. And yes, many are like that, but there is another side of cynicism. The dictionary defines the term with the negative connotations. But what of positive cynicism? Perhaps I'm not familiar with the proper term here, or it is missing from the language. A free-thinking person with high expectations will be lumped in with negative cynics, even though they are cut of entirely different cloth. These are the kinds of people we will be referring to here.

There is a world of difference between the man who can never be pleased and the man (or woman) who is waiting to be pleased. Imagine a ballet aficionado who loves that mode of art more than anything, but lives in some isolated country with only terrible ballet companies. He would be constantly displeased with every performance. To most people, he would be indistinguishable from the negative cynic. The ballerinas would dismiss his harsh reviews since he seems incapable of saying anything nice. And yet, if a wonderful company finally emerged, he would become their most loyal patron, would sing their praises, and would experience immense satisfaction. The cynic doesn't exist for the purpose of spreading negativity. To the contrary, he lives to share his love with the exquisite, the inspired, and the divine, but he is too principled to give undeserved praise. When the artist is a master, no one is more moved than the cynic.

To really know the cynic, we must compare him to his opposite. The opposite of a cynic merely adopts the values of whatever social entity they belong to and champions those values with incessant optimism. Most ambitious people are these kinds of anti-cynics, and they dominate leadership in government, in corporation, and even in the military, where they are called careerists. Careerists are people who's only goal is rank acquisition, so they wrap themselves in a shiny coat woven from the core values of their institutions. Their whole life becomes an act to portray a character who exhibits the traits most likely to be promoted. They are hypersocialized. They acquire all the values and behaviors they think society wants them to have. Their innate characters and intellects are squashed.

Such people acquire great benefit in the material world. In fact, it would be perfectly advisable for a cynic to adopt the role of the anti-cynic, just so long as they don't lose grasp of their own identity and values. Stoics knew that, even if they were held as slaves, the essence of their being was eternal and could never be altered or destroyed. There is much to risk in cynicism. Cynics are rarely powerful. Power requires latching onto a group identity, which requires a cynic to either forgo their free-thinking and high expectations, or to at least pretend to. Most of human social dynamics consists in picking sides. The true cynic says, "I have deep reservations with both sides."

I have found it interesting that, upon giving open support to Trump, I was quickly dismissed by most of my liberal friends as just a narrow-sighted Republican partisan, despite no additional supporting evidence. In fact, I have longed loathed the Republicans, and never voted for Bush, McCain, or Romney. I'm well aware that I couldn't be elected dogcatcher as a Republican because I don't pretend to be religious or strongly opposed to abortion. Conversely, I couldn't be elected as a Democrat, as I'm not a 3rd wave feminist or an Islamophiliac. The only path to power, if I was so-inclined and capable, would be to adopt one of the roles and run with it, which they all do. (Yes, even Trump.)

Despite the significant costs of cynicism, the rewards are the sanity and satisfaction that can only be acquired by living life in accordance to one's values, innate character, and observations of reality. Ultimately everything the anti-cynic is doing is to play pretend. They pretend they have values and qualities where they don't. They pretend to give optimistic praise where it supports the illusion they are crafting. They pretend that their adopted side is without flaw. One of the strongest recurring themes in this blog is a disgust with people who discard their human traits of observation, reasoning, and logic. The anti-cynic does all this. They trade in their precious and sacred gifts for the chance to ride of the waves of social circumstance. They are, by their actions, less human. Cynicism is the key to personal salvation. Jesus was quite the cynic, was he not?

Brett Stevens wrote an excellent piece a couple weeks ago called Entropy and Heat Death. Entropy is the effect of nature that drives systems to change states, and always in the direction of greater disorder. We can think of the entirety of our physical existence as harnessing available energy to maintain order in the face of the constant eroding force of entropy. We make the choices most likely to aid us in our eternal battle against disorder. Social dynamics are analogous. We are compelled constantly towards social disorder. Only through effective harnessing of energy can we maintain civilization. We make the choices that seem most likely to aid in that goal, usually based on experience and intuition. The point that Stevens was making was that, because post-modernists (fancy word for liberal) want us to pretend all choices are morally equivalent, we completely neuter our ability to fight entropy. It's like saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you insulate the walls of your home because no life choice is better than another. Of course we know better because we quickly pay the price for the mistake. But the costs of societal mistakes are paid out in the scale of human lifetimes. We can run seriously off the tracks before the inevitable corrective forces have their way with us.

The anti-cynic is our enemy. They don't give preference to the best ideas and solutions. They don't make the necessary distinctions between good and bad. Thus, they are just as useless as the liberals. But they're even worse, because they act from the state of pure self-interest. Many liberals have great desire to sustain civilization, they are just misguided in approach. The anti-cynic is only interested in their status. They'll gladly sink the ship so long as they get to play captain as it dips under. Only the cynic is fully dedicated to the task of keeping the boat righted and on the proper course. Without cynics civilization would implode within a generation.

Muslims Kill Liberals pt 6

Today, New York City was culturally enriched by the religion of pieces. I'm sure this isn't news to anyone here, nor is there a need to make the case that NYC is a hotbed of liberal disorder (only 18% of New Yorkers voted for their hometown hero). What is most interesting about the event is, as usual, it's a dose of reality that makes the left look dumb. There has been something very striking in the last year with timing. World events almost seem to conspire to work against the left. This blog noted it first last year, that every other time Obama opened his mouth events quickly transpired to contradict him. We see that continue against the left in general. I can't quite tell if there if there is something "spooky" going on here, or if it's just that, because reality nearly always contradicts the left, these coincidental timings are just bound to happen.

In this case, liberals in Virginia, terrified of losing the governor's seat, ran an ad intended to terrorize the population. It depicted minority children in the streets being run down by a truck of Confederate-flag-waving whites with a bumper sticker for the Republican candidate. It must be the most racist, fear-mongering thing ever aired on TV, and certainly a lower brow campaign ad than even the most cynical of us on the right could have imagined. Can you imagine if we ran an ad depicting a truck of Allahu Ackbar chanting Muslims running down innocent white children? We'd probably be thrown in jail for hate crimes. No matter, since reality is running those ads for us much more convincingly than we could ever manage.

There Are No Rules, Only Excuses

AnonCon's post on the wiping of voter fraud evidence in Georgia makes a point that we really should be hammering away on in the realm of personal preparedness: there are no rules. Everything you've been taught about society is invalid. We could write a book building the case (and maybe we should), but I think most people reading here will understand. Let's just highlight a few examples, knowing this is just a scratch on the surface.

In AnonCon's post, officials decided it would be preferable to risk a misdemeanor charge for destruction of evidence and loss of a lawsuit than to provide evidence of electronic voter fraud. After all, it's just tax dollars, and the chances of a significant criminal prosecution are minor. It's the obvious choice.

The leaked DNC emails revealed a host of election violations. No government action has occurred. (What exactly does the FEC do?) From Comey, we learned that federal espionage statutes are unenforceable, but only for powerful Democrats. Under President Obama, the IRS harassed Tea Party entities specifically. They didn't have special rules against the Tea Party, only special enforcement. The NFL strictly enforces uniform & conduct rules when players want to memorialize 9/11, or fallen police officers, but suddenly ignores them when players protest the national anthem. In Europe, hate laws imprison right wingers who say something unkind about immigrants. They never are invoked when immigrants say terrible things about the natives.

Imagine a racist town that wants to chase out blacks. They pass a law against jaywalking, but only arrest blacks for jaywalking, while other races jaywalk freely. The town doesn't have a rule against jaywalking; it has an excuse to terrorize blacks. Rules become not tools for standardization of behavior, but legal excuses for those in power to do whatever they want to do. Trump's team makes a fruitless meeting with a Russian lawyer and it's treason, treason, treason! Clinton receives cash from Russia in return for quid pro quo favors and it's whatever. Which is why we need to be real concerned about this special counsel. They're looking for any rule they can find to justify legal action against political opponents. No one really gives a damn about the actual rule.

This is something to keep in mind for your own well-being. Germanic societies are, relative to other societies, lawful and orderly.* We stay in our lanes. We instinctively form lines. We grew up with the understanding that if you followed the legal and cultural conventions you could live a pleasant life. Those conventions are dead. A large chunk of the society rejects everything about our Anglo heritage, and massive immigration has brought in a sea of foreign cultures and genes. The assumption that things will run today as they did in the Germanic society we were raised to believe in is the road to ruin. It no longer matters what the rules are as much as the interests of whoever is enforcing the rules. People will colloquially assert we are transforming into a 3rd world country. Indeed, we are becoming less like Bavaria and more like Brazil, but more accurately we should say we are transforming from an orderly society to a disorderly society. In a disorderly society there are only two scenarios, which aren't mutually exclusive. Chaos, like Brazil, or government tyranny, which is the only way to keep the trains running on time.

The advised approach to our life in neo-America is to relocate to whatever Germanic enclaves still exist and to treat all government institutions with the same skepticism and caution you would if in Moscow or Harare. The only protection is to ensure the powerful are disincentivized from bothering you. Strength is your salvation. Our ultimate goal is to restore the orderly society but, in the mean time, we must operate in our world as it is.

* Japan is the only notable example that comes to mind as even more orderly. Perhaps some Buddhist societies would also qualify.

Wall Street Befuddled Over NFL

At long last, I am able to give financial advice in the form of a Jeff Foxworthy joke, thanks to CNBC coverage of the NFL's falling ratings.

The advice:

If your stock broker is befuddled over falling NFL ratings, you might need a new stock broker.

Of course, we know what happened. The NFL became a platform for anti-American protests. Highly patriotic football fans became highly disgusted. It's such simple cause and effect we can't fathom how anyone, especially city bigwigs who specialize in understanding market forces, could miss it. And yet they assert that the ratings falls were caused by concussions, or the internet, or competing programming. It's eyes wide shut with them. They refuse to acknowledge the social forces at play.

Many people have analyzed this, but it's worth walking through again, for anyone who might have missed it.

Blacks and whites in America are nearly two different nations. We still have plenty of common. Indeed, we don't see many white moving back to Europe (much as Hillary supporters promised they would) and we certainly don't see blacks moving back to Africa. Still, the differences exceed the variation of what could be termed a nation.  A nation is defined by shared genetics, culture, language, and values. White is the default culture in America, and blacks intentionally separate themselves from it. They speak differently, they act differently, they walk differently, they have different interests. They social signal through different brands and products. Think of how often you see a vehicle and you know it's black-owned before you are able to view the driver. We do it without even thinking about it. A lot of the black counter culture is natural (people are largely ruled by their genetic programming) and a lot of it is intentional. Blacks want their own identity. The alt-right approves of this kind of behavior. It is the source of true diversity, and it complies with our values of national self-determinism and organic societies.

Much of what separates the alt-right from nearly everyone else is the realization that genes matter. It may sound trivial, but the notion is absolute heresy in the mainstream prog cult, where each individual is a "blank slate" whose outcomes are steered only by social forces. And thus, if outcomes are disparate, there must be societal oppression! Anyone present on American soil is by definition a full-fledged member of the American nation. (The "Magic Dirt" theory.) Differences in language, culture, psychologies, and values can be approximately ignored. Much of the friction between the alt-right and the rest, and the reason they call us so many mean names, is that we like to point out inconvenient observations that challenge the one-nation belief.

The observations come from everywhere. People of all races tend to live amongst themselves. They tend to prefer schools and neighborhoods where they are the majority. Social media studies have underscored just how self-segregated we are. White people have mostly white friends. Black people have mostly black friends.

The one place in all of America where we can pretend we're all one nation is on the football field. Think of all the Hollywood movies where the desegregated students are able to unite on the gridiron. Well, there's truth to that! It's a group identity, with shared values and goals, and a shared culture, that tends to replace other identities, at least temporarily. [This is also true in the military, where there is vast racial diversity yet a surprising lack of racial tension. In my unit we cracked racist jokes all the time. That's something you can only do when there is so little racial tension you don't have to worry about everyone getting offended.] In football, we could pretend we were all, at the end of the day, one nation, with shared values. No wonder the games adopted quasi-religious rituals, like the pre-game national anthem. No wonder some people become so emotionally attached to the league. It's a bubble where they feel the warm glow of tribal identity and unity.

It has been increasingly hard to suspend reality to maintain the illusion. The league is highly corporate and the players barely represent America anymore. It is dominated by blacks (who only comprise about a tenth of the general population) and they hardly give effort to portraying American ideals and have amassed an impressive cumulative rap sheet. Everyone looks the other way. In college they frequently engage in campus sexual assaults. Everyone looks the other way. Their transgressions are ignored because they, well for one they bring in big money, but even more importantly they are members of the priestly caste, and thus normal rules don't apply. They are protected by the one-nation bubble.

When players protest the anthem, they take a big stick and pop their protective bubble. A lot of people don't understand why the reaction to the protest has been so strong. But they fail to comprehend the social dynamic happening here. Players protesting is a HUGE deal in the context of the NFL's role as national church service, and incredibly stupid for players who have been granted ridiculous amounts of money, status, and liberty for providing an hour of entertainment sixteen weeks a year. Black protests are a way of reminding whitey that we aren't, actually, one nation, that blacks have great grievances with white America, and they don't really want to be associated with us. The grievances are fictional, but the sentiment is real.

Kneeling during the national prayer is like a priest refusing communion to the bulk of his congregation for their sins. Priests don't ever do that because they are in the business of keeping the pews full. The NFL is learning that the hard way.

The popped bubble can't be restored, not to where it was anyway. I could never go see Citizen Twain again and see the Mark Twain illusion, rather than just Val Kilmer being pompous. A lot of fans can never watch the NFL again and believe the one-nation illusion. The ratings drops are not temporary, even if the NFL handles it masterfully from here out. (Which they won't, because they're infected with liberalism.) If your investor can't comprehend this, then they are blind to the social forces that can affect your portfolio. They can run the numbers but they can't see the bigger picture. It's the big picture that's important! That's how you avoid the black swan events, like the dot com crash of the late nineties or the housing bubble crash of the late two thousand aughts. If your broker doesn't understand why morphing into a left-wing political entity will destroy an otherwise productive enterprise, find another broker! Make that your litmus test. Otherwise you put your financial well-being in the hands of an ignoramus. (And you give your money to a lefty. Ew!)

Finally, a little schadenfreude to round this post out. ESPN has been, if anything, worse than the NFL in being hijacked by liberalism. But effect follows cause like the tides follow the moon. The three most satisfying things to see in sports: a long 3-point shot, a hail-mary touchdown pass, and progs being tackled blindside by reality:

ESPN bracing for another round of widespread layoffs

The End of Cable

The American Conservative recently published a piece called The End of Football, where they predict football will play an increasingly minor role in the coming decades, much as the circus was once the "biggest show on Earth" and is now something of a novelty. Parents are already withholding their boys from football because of the long-term effects of head injuries, participation is on the decline, and the NFL being used as platform for anti-American left-wing protest is just the icing on the cake.

The author reminds us that having the anthem before every sporting event is somewhat creepy to begin with. I've never seen the need for it. Before we throw this ball around, let's offer some prayers to the state. The problem is that the flag & anthem are symbols of the state and the nation. It's not really possible to protest them as an anti-state action without inadvertently disrespecting the nation. But there are ways to go about it. For instance, I do not fly an American flag on my house. Instead, I opt to fly a Missouri state flag. This isn't the same as burning the flag or making other public displays of disrespect to the American flag.

At any rate, the author is probably right. Football is a great sport, it's sad to see it ruined by lefties, but it's been ruined. The players no longer represent America. They haven't for a while, but now they're making damn sure we can't ignore the fact. And the industry panders to women these days too. It's no longer a guy's space, and it no longer feels all-American. We'll move on to something else. I doubt the league can ever recover.

The slow death of football will have some secondary effects. Most notably will be its effect on cable viewership. I haven't paid for cable in over a decade, and I've had numerous conversations with people in that time, in person and online. There are many people who want to quit cable, but can't quite do it. They don't trust the news, they can get movies and shows online; the one thing holding them back is live sports. There is no substitute for have sporting events beamed live into your TV, so they keep the cable package. In many ways, sports are keeping the cable cabal alive. As the leagues continue to disgust normal Americans they are removing the last remaining excuse to keep footing that cable bill (which sends money to CNN and all the other liberal outlets).

The average American spends over 4 hours a day watching television. That's insane. Not only does that distract people from engaging in productive and rewarding activities, it is also the primary channel for mass brainwashing. So as much as I enjoy watching a football game, the league can go down in flames for all I care. I hope they burn an American flag and punch a nun at the next game.